Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tallest buildings in Brooklyn/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by  Pres N  17:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC).

List of tallest buildings in Brooklyn

 * Nominator(s): West Virginian   (talk)  01:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive history and list of the tallest high-rise buildings in Brooklyn. The introduction is a bit shorter than that of the list for New York City, but this can be forgiven as this merely deals with the sole borough of Brooklyn. Any comments, guidance, and assistance to make this a Featured List is appreciated and welcomed! -- West Virginian   (talk)  01:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Note to reviewers (because it was the first question I had when I saw this nomination): You'd think that this list would be a subset of List of tallest buildings in New York City and thus a content fork, but as that list only has buildings higher than 600 feet, and the tallest building in Brooklyn is 590 feet, there is 0% overlap. -- Pres N  03:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments Looks like a good list. Here are my few suggestions:
 * I would remove "proposed" buildings, as this is a list of tallest buildings, not potential tallest buildings that might be built (running afoul of WP:CRYSTAL).
 * Mattximus, first and foremost, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to review this list and provide thoughtful feedback! I will address each comment one by one. Please let me know if you have any further questions in the meantime. Regarding WP:CRYSTAL, a list of proposed high-rise buildings is not uncommon in Featured Lists of tallest buildings: List of tallest buildings in New York City, List of tallest buildings in Chicago, etc. Per your guidance, I've removed it. -- West Virginian   (talk)  21:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The second last paragraph is a bit hard to follow, maybe you could make clear the present ranking of the building in terms of height to help the reader keep track? Otherwise the last sentence "The borough's fourth-tallest" comes out of nowhere (why 4th, what about the other 3?).
 * Mattximus, I've clarified that The Brooklyner and the Williamsburgh Savings Bank Tower are the second and third-tallest buildings in the borough per your suggestion. Please let me know if this current configuration works! -- West Virginian   (talk)  22:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A thumbnail image of 388 Bridge Street would look good to the right of the lead, as it is the tallest building in Brooklyn.
 * Mattximus, I concur with this idea, however, a decent free image of 388 Bridge Street is not yet available on Wikimedia Commons, and I'm not in New York at the moment to take a photo. I'm currently working on acquiring one as we speak, but this change may not happen within the timeline of this review. -- West Virginian   (talk)  21:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "This list ranks completed and topped out Brooklyn skyscrapers" is an old way of writing that is no longer considered good form for featured lists. It could be changed to "There are 32 completed or topped out skyscrapers in Brooklyn..."
 * Mattximus, this has been changed per your suggestion. Let me know if it works in its new form. -- West Virginian   (talk)  22:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "The "Year" column indicates the year in which a building was completed." could be deleted and your column could be changed to "year completed".
 * Mattximus, thank you for this suggestion. I've removed the sentence, and added "completed" to the column header. -- West Virginian   (talk)
 * City Point Tower II is indicated to be under construction, but is not in the under construction table. This should be made clear.
 * Mattximus, thank you for the catch! I've entered City Point Tower II in the under construction section, as it is still under construction. It was also remain in the main list, since it has been topped out. -- West Virginian   (talk)  22:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For this one, I don't think it's necessary to have it in both tables. I would just keep it where it was in the big table and just have a footnote stating "topped out but still under construction" or something like that. Will continue my review later, but it overall looks good.
 * Mattximus, it is commonplace in other Featured Lists of tall buildings to twice-mention a building that is under construction and topped out: once in the list of completed buildings so that the reader can see the building has successfully reached its planned height, and once in the under construction list since the building is still technically eligible for listing there due to its incomplete status. Again, I am flexible with this and if need be, could include a footnote instead. -- West Virginian   (talk)  02:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I still think having it once in the main list is fine, however I won't oppose the nomination on this little point. Mattximus (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "An equal sign (=) following a rank indicates the same height between two or more buildings" I think this is redundant and not needed.
 * Mattximus, I've removed the equal signs per your suggestion. -- West Virginian   (talk)  22:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove equal sign, they are very important! You just don't need to say equal signs mean equal in the paragraph, it's tautological.
 * "An asterisk (*) indicates that the building is still under construction, but has been topped out." This could be done as a footnote as is done in many tables.
 * Mattximus, I've added a footnote and have included this statement under an "Explanatory notes" subsection. -- West Virginian   (talk)  22:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Overall a very good article. Mattximus (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Made a few changes myself, let me know if they are acceptable.
 * Close to support but a few little points:
 * You mention that there are 32 buildings over 300 feet, but I count 29? You will need a citation for that number, but one of the pages already cited probably has that number in it, just need to add the citation where I put the tags.

Support if these little changes are made. Great work! Mattximus (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Mattximus, I've recounted and there are 32 buildings. That two pairs of buildings that are the same height, and are therefore, tied. I had removed the equal signs per your request. I've added an inline citation to the Emporis website that lists all the completed buildings. I've also taken City Point Tower II out of the under construction list per your request. It is now listed in the main list only, with an asterisk illustrating that it has been topped out. Thank you for all your guidance and support throughout this process, and please let me know if you have any further suggestions to improve the overall quality of this list! -- West Virginian   (talk)  00:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, just one thing, please return the equal signs as per my explanation above. I guess you counted buildings that are 297 feet as being "over 300", that's where my number discrepancy came from. But it's close enough so I won't quibble over that one. Mattximus (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Mattximus, I sincerely apologize for my oversight, the list covers buildings at a height of or over 295 ft. 90 meters was the benchmark here, to be more inclusive since some buildings hover just under 300 ft. I've re-added the equal signs. Take another look and let me know what you think! Also, thank you for your edits and additions, they are greatly appreciated! -- West Virginian   (talk)  01:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks very good. Just caught a little one: "This measurement includes spires and architectural details but does not include antenna masts", the citation doesn't include this information, can it be found somewhere on that site (specifically, where did you get this definition for height)? Mattximus (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Mattximus, the specific height for each building was pulled from the individual pages. The heights used here use the architectural heights, and not the heights of antenna masts, but this information can only be gleaned from the individual pages. Any suggestions as how to best illustrate this point? -- West Virginian   (talk)  01:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: This kind of refutes one of Mattximus's points above, but the articles "List of tallest buildings in New York City" and "List of tallest buildings in Bellevue, Washington", both featured lists, does indeed have a "Tallest proposed buildings" section. Provided that these buildings are definitely in the final planning stages and not just one developer's vision for a supertall skyscraper (which would then be violating this policy), a table of proposed builginds can be added to the article.

Also, a consistent reference format is needed; you should use either almost all sfn (or a variant like harvnb) or almost all expanded citations like cite web, cite book, etc. Epic Genius (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Epic Genius, per your point, I have reinstated the list of proposed buildings. None of the buildings mentioned are considered visions, and all are slated to begin construction within the next two years. If any of the buildings should become stale proposals, or be cancelled, they will of course be removed. Regarding the sources, it is a common practice to use harvnb format for sources from published books with multiple pages referenced, and to use cite web and cite newspaper for websites and newspaper articles without page numbers. I admit that it does look a bit strange with the two being used side by side. I could repeat the cite book each time with the new page number, but it could become quite cluttered in the citations section. Cogitate on that and let me know what you think. Thank you for your comments and suggestions and for your guidance on the list provided thus far! -- West Virginian   (talk)  02:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with this statement from Epic Genius. A while back I went through many of the featured tallest buildings list, and in nearly every case the "proposed buildings" were almost all never built, with old links from many years ago proclaiming how great this building is going to be. Based on these experiences, I don't believe any of these lists should have speculative proposed buildings. It is not encyclopedic to report on non-buildings. No other (largest/longest lists etc.) have speculative potential entries in their lists. I've tried to remove them from all previous featured lists and met with no resistance (since almost all those proposed buildings were cancelled many years ago when these articles were promoted anyway). The only exception is if the building is actually under construction then we have at least a physical thing to put on this list. Speculative potential ones could end up in an architect's dusty cabinet even if "approved". Mattximus (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , I've removed the proposed list pending consensus on the subject. The list can stand alone without the list of proposed buildings. -- West Virginian   (talk)  02:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is best, thanks for making the change, when the buildings are built then they can be added to the list without problem, there is no need to predict the future. Mattximus (talk) 01:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is fine as well. Epic Genius (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , did you have any further guidance or comments regarding my responses above? I wanted to ensure that I addressed all your concerns. -- West Virginian   (talk)  02:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Besides the (minor) issue of standardized references, no. Epic Genius (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've modified the references per your recommendation. Please take a look and let me know if you see any other impediments. Thank you again for taking the time to review this list for FL! -- West Virginian   (talk)  03:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your hard work on this article. I am happy to support this nomination. Epic Genius (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from

 * Support – good work. Any chance you could look at this? -- Frankie  talk 14:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @: Forbidding MOS, I don't see why else "New York City" shouldn't be linked. It's a pretty relevant link, and one doesn't need to click through the "Brooklyn" wikilink to get to the NYC page. Might be my personal preference, but I'm just stating that this would be a pretty obvious choice of wikilinks. Epic Genius (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for your concern. However, I had based my query on WP:OVERLINK, which states "the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, and religions [should not be linked]", but seeing this article, which is related to NYC, I think there shouldn't be any problem of overlinking (if it's wiki-linked). -- Frankie  talk 14:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * and, thank you both for your support first and foremost! My personal reading of Wikipedia's "overlinking" guidelines is this: linking a place name of a major geographical location is only "overlinking" if you link say New York City for a birthplace mention, place of business mention, or some other secondary or tertiary mention. This is a list of high-rises in a borough of New York City, so it wouldn't hurt if it was linked in this context as these buildings are in New York City. However, I am in agreement with both sides. I would like a solution to be agreed upon by both of you so that this list is free of controversy and can be promoted. Thanks again! -- West Virginian   (talk)  14:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose in this scenario, "New York City" can be linked once, but not "New York" or "United States", as these two linkages go against WP:OVERLINK. Epic Genius (talk) 14:49, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Seconded. -- Frankie  talk 14:53, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * and : Alright, then it is settled! I've re-wiki-linked New York City in the lists's lede. Thank you all for your guidance and support for this list! -- West Virginian   (talk)  18:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: Well-written, and properly sourced. Well done. Krish  |  Talk  07:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Azealia911
Alls I spotted, a good list!  Azealia 911  talk  22:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing an image until I use the page down button, consider an image (maybe the tallest building in Brooklyn) for the main image to situate next to the right of the lead.
 * Brooklyn /ˈbrʊklɪn/ → Brooklyn (pronounced /ˈbrʊklɪn/)
 * Per WP:LEAD, you can remove citations for things later repeated in the article. EG, you can remove ref #2 from which rises 590 feet (180 m) and was opened in 2014.[2] as it's repeated in the table lower down the page. Do the same for any other applicable lead citations.
 * Consider moving references in tables to a Ref column.
 * Any refs which publisher ends in .com → |website= as opposed to |publisher=
 * , thank you so incredibly much for taking the time to engage in this review. I appreciate your guidance and feedback. As there are no decent images of Brooklyn's tallest and second-tallest high-rise buildings, has added an image of the third-tallest high-rise taken from Atlantic Terminal. Under the history section, I added an image of what is considered Brooklyn's "first skyscraper" as it is mentioned in the prose. I also incorporated Brooklyn (pronounced /ˈbrʊklɪn/) into the lede. I also removed the original reference two and three other references similar to it that are mentioned below in the list. As for the reference column, I had originally had one but a previous user recommended I remove it, so I've done so. I've also changed all the instances of "|publisher=" for the Emporis.com sources to "|website=." Please take another look and let me know if I've missed anything. Once again, thank you so much for the review and thoughtful comments and suggestions! --  West Virginian   (talk)  06:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me know if you have any outstanding questions or concerns regarding this article. Once again, thank you for your review and feedback! -- West Virginian   (talk)  20:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support All comments have been addressed!  Azealia 911  talk  20:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , thank you tremendously for the review and for your support! -- West Virginian   (talk)  20:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


 * , thank you again for the review sir! -- West Virginian   (talk)  19:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Closing this nomination as Passed. Remember to review other nominations so that the FLC process will run faster next time you nominate, and consider submitting this list to Today's featured list/submissions! -- Pres N  17:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.